Q&A: Responses from spring All Employee Meeting

ALL EMPLOYEE MEETING: June 6, 2019

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question #1:  Can you provide an update to the campus on the DO school proposal?

Answer:   Hoa Nguyen: Yes, absolutely. The committee completed its work last November and made the recommendation to engage a consulting service for a feasibility study.  None of us are experts on the wide-ranging issues involved here, so we sat down with the President to answer his follow-up questions.  The Committee or I will make a recommendation to the President about a consulting firm.  We will be looking for funding for the study in the new fiscal year.  There’s not a lot of revenue for new initiatives, so the challenge is not finding a consulting firm that matches our needs.  The challenge is to find funding for the study given our many other high prioritized initiatives that need funding.

Answer:  Rob Huntington:  I want to express huge appreciation to the Committee who put in a lot of work over multiple months during this past year.  We are not shutting down the feasibility study. I would love to be inside a successful Heidelberg DO School 10 years in the future.  But the road from here to there is very steep, if not totally insurmountable.  And we have to start on a strong base of running our core educational operation successfully.

Question #2:  With the new budget process, what are the steps and the timelines if submitted budgets do not achieve the $1.5M deficit limit?  First step, send all budgets back to all units?  If not this, then what?  If sent for a second round and we still do not achieve the limit, then what?  It is really unclear who decides which units have not cut as much as they should and could have vs. those who have made a strong, acceptable effort.

Answer:  Hoa:  Based on the budget submissions so far, we have not achieved the $1.5 million deficit goal.  Joel (Wilkins) and I will do an in-depth analysis focusing more on expenditures.  Then, the next step will be to sit down with SLT and the deans and explain where we are financially.  Using the Collaborative Input Model, the planning starts at the department level and works its way up to the Dean level.  For academic areas, the Deans, working with the Provost, will submit their budgets.  At that point, we will do our analysis and present our findings to the President.  Our time frame is to have a preliminary operating budget at the June Board of Trustees meeting.  Eventually we will be looking at revenue sources like room and board, endowment support and The Heidelberg Fund.  We will need to finalize our tuition discount rate as well.

Follow-up question:  So you won’t make sweeping cuts?  Those decisions will be made at the unit level?

Answer:  Hoa:  That’s the concept when we developed the new budget prioritization process.  Any acceptable efforts by department heads will be credited to them.  Our best hope is that any cuts or efforts (to decrease expenditures) will be resolved already when the Deans or VPs sit down with department heads.  The assumption is that those discussions are already done.  The objective in the new process is to delegate the planning to departments.

Follow-up question:  Could you explain the role of the Strategic Budgeting Committee in this new process?

Answer:  Hoa:  The Committee’s role is to look at the budget from an institutional perspective.   For example, if there are any requests for new initiatives (initiatives never previously funded), those would be presented to the Strategic Budgeting Committee.  If we are still not achieving our deficit target, maybe we will need to get more information about budget requests by inviting respective Deans and VPs to meet with the Committee.  The President has the authority to veto any line items or make necessary cuts.

Question #3:  Will there be a budget for safety improvements in the Natural Sciences, or is it assumed that each department will fund their own improvements?  This will cost money.

Answer:  Margaret Rudolph:  Bob Fruth was brought on board about 5 or 6 weeks ago as the new chemical/lab operations and safety specialist.  Bob, Bryan (Smith), Rod Morrison, Beth Schwartz and I met just a few weeks ago and all of us looked at the work the consulting company did.  Bob will be doing an assessment of the needs as far as improvement and upkeep, and develop a timeline.  We will set up an independent budget line and general safety costs will come out of that line.  This should reduce duplication effectively and raise our safety to higher levels.  So the short answer is yes.

Question #4: Whose decision was the Welcome Center?  Is that a pressing need for our campus?

Answer:  Doug Kellar:  The actual decision to move forward with a Welcome Center evolved over time.  The idea originated at an offsite admission staff meeting 4 or 5 years ago.  Rob joined the meeting fresh off a “tour of colleges” trip with Ashley and referenced all the wonderful welcome centers they had experienced on the trip.  That comment aligned with discussion that had just taken place with our admission group.  Other institutional interests propelled the idea further.  The enhancements to East Market Street, including the Frost Kalnow Amphitheater, the Justice Center, the streetscape improvements, housing upgrades and eventually the old BP station fueled the idea of improving our gateway to and from the downtown area for our current and prospective students.  The need to provide additional space for the Owen Academic & Career Services Center offered more support to the idea of a Welcome Center.  It was determined that the Campus Bookstore should be housed in the new Welcome Center.  This would free up a larger space in the Campus Center for the Owen Center to move and also offer better access for our students compared to the second level of the Campus Center.  I believe that the Welcome Center will be a tremendous enhancement to campus and won’t come at the expense of other priorities.  Other campus needs are being addressed – housing (France Hall & Townhouse Apartments, Miller Hall), dining (Parkhurst & The HeidelBean!), Sarah Street (safety & access). Funding for capital improvements and investments through the USDA loan can’t be applied to athletic complexes but can be used for a Welcome Center.

Answer:  Rob:  Regarding funding sources, we have to understand what USDA dollars can be used for and use it, what Parkhurst funds can be used for and use it, and what donor funds can be used for and use it.  It will be great having the bookstore attract (community) traffic and generate revenue.  Regarding the Welcome Center, the first 25 percent of donor dollars came from Trustees and that was a strong signal.  It waned after that.  It was my decision to keep going.  The Welcome Center is the seventh of seven projects we’ll do over the next 30-36 months.

Question #5:  Did we have any control about the exterior of The HeidelBean!?  An enormous black box in the middle of campus looks strange.

Answer:  Rob:  Yes, we did.  This project was aimed at students.  Part of our discussion with our prior food service vendor years ago centered on the “harvest” mentality, but that got no traction.  It had instant traction with Parkhurst.  The design is aimed at 18- to 22-year-olds.  The stark external appearance is intentional.  We wanted to do something that catches people’s attention, particularly younger people.

Question #6:  Please review the new budgeting process and the nepotism policy.

Answer.  Margaret:  By way of a definition, nepotism is favoritism shown to family or friends.  Our policy was revised and updated in 2017.  It provides guidance and a process for the hiring of family members.  Many who were hired prior were grandfathered.  There is a management plan for those whose family members would be direct reports.  We’re always open to suggestions for further revisions.  So far, it seems to be working OK.

Answer:  Rob:  From various Board of Trustees discussions about our nepotism policy, 90-95 percent believe it is excellent and flexible and liberal, based on their varied experiences.  I agree with them.

Answer:  Hoa:  In my opinion, it was time for institutionalizing a formal budgeting process with transparency and collaboration.  We have to make decisions about our limited resources better and smarter.  This first year of the new process, there is a learning curve and lessons to be learned so that we improve next year.  This year, the institutional priorities focus on recruitment, retention and graduation.

Question #7:  I would like to hear the decision of SLT on the Mathematics Department.  Will Dr. Grasman's position be replaced or be eliminated?  If the decision is latter, will Math Department be eliminated as well?

A:  Beth Schwartz:  We must review all of the positions and make decisions about lines related to our continuous reassessment of resources.  These must be data-driven decision based on a review of enrollment, retention, and graduation numbers in the major.  In the upcoming months we are looking at all departments as a whole and how we can best serve students.

Answer:  Rob:  I made the decision to eliminate that line in the Math Department.  We need to balance our Operating Budget and prioritize our resources. 

Answer:  Beth: There are seven retirements (2 in education, 1 in math, 1 in English, 1 in music and 2 administrative/faculty) we will not be filling.  Part of it is looking from a budget perspective: Where don’t we need to spend money, where don’t we need these resources?

Question #8:  Please provide an update on the Great Colleges to Work For survey and the DO school.

Answer:  Margaret:  The last survey was completed in 2018.  1) The decision was made not to participate this year as part of the budget pullback.  2) This gives us an opportunity to pause and take a deeper dive into our responses (from the last survey).  Dr. Sarah Luczyk has conducted multiple discussion forums (SLT did not participate) to address the recurring themes and to address potential solutions.

Those were presented to SLT three weeks ago and we are working through the solutions and determining how a timeline can be worked into our current operations.  Some will require planning.

Question #9:  What can you tell us about a Recreation Center building?

Answer:  Rob:  From the moment I got there, the Rec Center has been an area of interest.  In fact, the conversations go back much further than that, probably 20-25 years.  It has never gained much traction even though it’s always been a part of our future planning.  We will continue our assessment and feasibility of that opportunity.

Question #10:  Where are we at with the potential changes to our general education curriculum?  What will be the overarching theme and are we keeping in mind this needs to be attractive to prospective students?

Answer:  Beth:  Faculty were invited to forums to provide updates from the two groups who are developing two separate models in parallel.  We are looking at our current educational model and our goals.  We do need to build a general education model to take advantage of the market.  The two committees met independently to develop the two different models:  one is a revision of the current model that simplifies the way students fulfill gen ed requirements keeping in mind the list of courses they will need to obtain the breadth of knowledge and combining the discipline requirements with the skills requirements.  The second model is a professional skills model that would be a complete overhaul that makes connections across disciplines.  Professor Stephen Svoboda has been chosen to present the two models to the community and we’re having conversations about how that will happen moving forward.  The goal is to have a vote in the upcoming Fall, develop the new model thoroughly, and then implement it in the Fall of 2020.

Follow-up question:  How will the new academic calendar – with its many moving parts – complement the new gen ed requirements?

Answer:  Beth:  UPC, ACC and the Calendar Committee have been looking at this.  We can’t allow the moving parts to stop us in our tracks.  It will be to our advantage to have a new academic calendar and new gen eds move forward together, and that’s what we will be developing.

Question #11:  How are we advertising and targeting inclusivity at Heidelberg?

Answer:  Margaret:  We always utilize the diversity blast when we post faculty and staff jobs with higheredjobs.com.  Additionally, about a year ago, we joined the Higher Ed Recruitment Consortium, which is a faculty and staff recruitment group aimed at increasing diversity on campuses as well as providing resources to train search committees in more welcoming processes to encourage a diverse faculty and staff. This fall, the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee will dive into this to identify needs and address solutions.  If anyone is interested in serving on the committee, the nomination process will be open this summer and appointments will be announced at the beginning of the academic year.

Answer:  Chris Abrams:   From the student side, I’m happy with some of the things that we’ve moved forward with and how the staff has come to the table with new ideas.  As a resident facility Ubuntu House did not get off to the best start but it has functioned well as a programmatic space.  Cherrelle Gardner and her team are ready to go back to the original concept with a housing component this year.  Residence Life came responded to a need for gender-neutral housing and it has been a hit.  Thanks to a student-led initiative, we have identified and added signage to designate a number of gender-neutral bathrooms on campus.  Kayela Tidrick and Margaret Rudolph continue to work on some things in athletics and NCAA requirements.  We continue to be sensitive to how the new committee is going to help students and faculty and staff.

Follow-up question: Who are we looking to hire?

Answer:  Margaret:  We continue to identify systematically all we can do to change and improve to make sure our learning, living, education and work environments are inclusive of everyone -- all genders, races, ethnicities, orientations, etc.  We also want to reach into the Tiffin Community and extend every way we can to make our larger community better.

Question #12:  What are the strategies and implementation processes to grow our non-athletic population?

Answer:  Doug:  The larger issue is why more students who aren’t student-athletes aren’t choosing Heidelberg.  I believe we are trying to rectify this issue by adding and enhancing academic programs and improving our campus facilities.  The No. 1 strategy for increasing our student non-athlete population in the next recruitment cycle is related to our admission staff responsibility re-organization.  Many of you have already heard about this new approach that Tom Alexander is leading and some of you are part of the group from around campus providing input.  Staff responsibilities will no longer be associated with individual recruitment territories.  The admission staff will now be split into four outreach counselors and five campus-based academic program experts.  The four outreach counselors will continue to travel and generate interest and the campus-based staff will focus on providing the best information and campus visit experience possible for the students and parents who visit campus.  We will be much more intentional about providing a more in-depth campus visit experience (including classroom visits & meetings with members of the faculty) for our student non-athletes.

In addition to the new responsibility structure in Admission, we will continue to work with and enhance recruitment efforts that have been started in Music and Theatre.  These areas tend to attract more student non-athletes.

Working with the Honors Program and our Scholars Day program is another intentional effort to recruit students based on their academic interests and not just athletics.

The nursing program is another addition that will help attract student non-athletes.

Question #13:  What's going on with the Octagon House?

Answer:  Rob:  Nothing.  When ACCE launched eight years ago, the Octagon House was listed in the fourth quadrant of our priorities (but was near the bottom of that list).  It is definitely worth preserving, but there is no interest to support its renovation at this time.  Previously, a non-Heidelberg-affiliated person offered $1 million to $1.3 million to renovate it – unless we had a higher priority.  My response was, “Yes, we do.”  Those higher priorities were professional development for faculty and technology.  The donor, Mr. James Dicke III, provided an endowment of $1.25 million which spins off $50,000 every year for professional development for faculty. We still would like to save the Octagon House, but it is not a priority.

Question #14:  Departments were to submit retention efforts.  To my knowledge, there has been no follow-up regarding these efforts.  Is there an overarching strategic plan on retention?  How are departments to fit into this plan if there is one?  I've heard the committee is somewhat defunct.

Answer:  Beth:  I understand the perception that the committee is defunct.  Two years ago, a smaller group added more members and more voices so that we would have a better understanding of the issues.  The group met throughout the Fall semester and halfway through Spring then stepped back to allow for the time needed for departments and offices to develop their Retention Action Plan.  Those have been turned in, Dr. Sarah Luzcyk met with most chairs and directors to refine the action plans.  This summer we are reviewing the goals, strategies and assessment.  Once all of the action plans are developed, the committee will come back in the Fall, look at trends, review what we are already doing, and clarify our actual plans for retention, and determine how we can support those plans.

Question #15:  Why did we make such drastic changes in our Graduate Assistant contracts/agreements?

Answer:  Chris:  The two largest groups of GAs are in Athletics and Residence Life & Housing.  The biggest reason for the change is housing capacity.  With France offline this year and Miller offline next year, townhouse space will not cover the gaps.  We had discussions with those two groups and we thought we could meet the needs of GAs and help with some budget issues.

Answer:  Margaret:  The change for GAs will come in for the 2019-20 year with adjustments to two-year appointments, tuition plus leveling courses.  They will not receive room and board but will receive a higher stipend and tuition remission.

Question #16:  How is the "Tobacco-Free Campus" working?  Who is in charge of enforcing this?

Answer:  Margaret:  Our Tobacco Use Policy has been in place since 2014.  We don’t have an enforcement mechanism.  But we are all empowered to politely ask someone who is smoking to please move to a public place (which means a sidewalk bordering a city street/road).  You can always let me know if you think there is a need for additional signage.

Answer:  Rob:  Several of us saw a couple of smokers at our recent baseball playoff games at Peaceful Valley.  They might have been parents of players.  These ball fields are part of our “Tobacco Free Campus.”  I asked Jeff Garvin to make a policy reminder announcement from the press box.  Jeff’s message helped address this situation.


 

 

 

 

Latest News & Announcements

Announcements

Marketing is again planning to feature some of our graduating seniors in our web series, Countdow

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

As the upcoming solar eclipse draws near, we want to ensure the safety and well-being of everyone

Turn in end of year work orders!

On Sunday, April 14th, 2024, Heidelberg's Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) invites the e

Be the next face of Heidelberg!